Brookfield report of losing lawsuit is incorrect

INSULATOR PATENT LITIGATION

Report That the Suit Was Lost By the Brookfield Company Untrue.

In our issue of October 1st, an article was reproduced in the Budget, taken from the September 22nd issue of the Bridgeton, N.J., "Pioneer," and credited to that paper, in which it was stated that the well-known Brookfield firm of Brooklyn, N.Y., had been defeated in its suit for infringement of patents against the Elmer Glass works, of Bridgeton. That the article was misleading is evidenced by the following communication sent to us by the Brookfield Glass Co., under the date of October 24th:

Our attention has been called to an article published in your issue of October 1st, 1904, relating to the recent decisions of his Honor Judge Lanning in our suit against the Elmer Glass Works and containing grave misstatements of fact which are calculated to seriously mislead the public.

It is not true that the suit was lost by the Brookfield Company. On the contrary, the Court has directed that a preliminary injunction should issue against the Elmer Glass Works. In the second place the Duffield patents have not been sustained by the Court, the fact being that the validity of the Duffield patents was not before the court for decision. The real facts of the case are as follows:

A suit was brought by William Brookfield against the Novelty Glass Manufacturing Company, of Elmer, N.J., for infringement of the Kribs patent. This suit was fought vigorously by the Novelty Co., that company contending that the Kribs patent was invalid, and also that the press of the Novelty Company did not infringe. The court decided against the Novelty Co., holding that the Kribs patent was valid and that the Novelty Co., had infringed, and a decree was entered for a perpetual injunction and for an accounting against the Novelty Co., and that accounting is now proceeding.

Shortly after the business of the Novelty Co., had been stopped by the decree of the court and its property sold out under a foreclosure, the Elmer Glass Works was organized, as we believe, by the same people. The Elmer Glass Works used two forms of press which they called the Duffield press. As soon as we became aware of the facts and of the construction of the Duffield press, we brought suit against the Elmer Glass Works and made a motion for a parliamentary injunction to restrain the Elmer Glass Works from using both forms of the press even during the suit. The court directed that a preliminary injunction should be issued against the Elmer Glass Works restraining it from using the second form of the Duffield press. The court refused to grant the preliminary injunction as against the first form of Duffield press simply because the Court held that there was a doubt as to whether this form of press infringed the Kribs patent.

We call your attention to the fact that preliminary injunctions are never granted except for the case of infringement is so clear as to be free from substantial doubt. The decision of the Court on this preliminary motion does not finally determine this question, but leaves it to be determined at the final hearing of the case upon ordinary proofs rather than upon affidavits.   We are entirely confident that at the final hearing even the first form of the Duffield press will be held to be an infringement of the Kribs patent, and its use will be enjoined and the Elmer Glass Works will be directed to account for all the profits that it has made and for the profits that we have suffered by reason of this infringement.

We also call attention to the fact that at the same time we made a motion to punish some of the officers of the former Novelty Glass Co. for contempt by reason of their violation of the injunction that had been previously granted by the Court. The Court held that Daniel M. Parker, who is now the Superintendent of the Elmer Glass Works, had been guilty of contempt by reason of the use of this second form of the Duffield press at the factory of the Elmer Glass Works, and directed that he should be fined in consequence thereof.

The article published in your paper refers to the fact that Mr. Duffield obtained a patent for his machine, as is this fact showed that Mr. Duffield had a right to use the same. The fact that Mr. Duffield received a patent does not permit him to use the device shown in that patent if that device is an infringement of a prior patent. The article referred to contains the further statement that Mr. Duffield "is sustained by the Court in each of his contentions." From what we have said above you will see that this statement is unqualifiedly false. The Court has enjoined Mr. Duffield from using one form of his press, and has merely postponed to final hearing the question whether he has a right to use the other form. We believe that at the final hearing he will be enjoined from using the first form, and that he and his associated will be adjudged to pay damages and profits just as happened in the case of the Novelty Company.

Our Kribs patent has been sustained by the Court and we propose to take vigorous steps if necessary to maintain our rights thereunder.

We think it is only fair to the trade generally who are likely to be gravely misled by the article appearing in your paper of October 1st, that you should publish this letter so that no one may be deceived by said article and let thereby unwittingly to infringe our patent ant thus become involved in litigation.